knowledge_backup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: consistent snapshot semantics, WAL safety, refusal to overwrite (so it will not clobber data), integrity reporting, and the out-of-band restore requirement all disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences; the core action and its safety guarantee are front-loaded, followed by the overwrite constraint and restore procedure, with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists and the description says it 'reports its integrity' without hinting at the report's shape or where the snapshot lands by default beyond the schema's path field. Otherwise complete for a one-parameter tool whose safety behavior is fully explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional target_path is fully documented there, including its default. The description adds nothing about path semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (snapshot) plus resource (the store / SQLite file) and even names the mechanism (VACUUM INTO, WAL-safe), so an agent can distinguish it from knowledge_reindex or knowledge_delete_document immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives operational constraints that govern usage – it refuses to overwrite an existing file, and restore happens offline via 'cli restore <file>' with the server stopped. There is no competing backup sibling to route against and no explicit 'when to use' clause, but the constraints are concrete and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.